>> You are not showing trust in a person when you create
>> "safeguards" to prevent her/him from making the "wrong"
>> choices.

So, to stir the pot a little, I'd like to throw in at what point is it a
decision and what point is it preventing them from making the 'wrong'
decision.

Because someone doesn't die instantly as they light up a cigarette is
that any different then jumping off a bridge? Does the time span between
a choice and the effect make the decision on what is coersion and what is
not? What if the person that is about to light a cigarette has some gene
factor that will trigger cell mutation faster than the next? What if the
person jumping off a bridge is not going to jump so far and the water
will break their fall? Yah, I'm going off here..

The idea of being democratic and then wanting to stop someone from
jumping off a bridge as opposed to smoking or taking drugs (legal or
illegal) can get into some fine lines and opinions that don't have any
true answer.

IMHO,
Kolleen

===========

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:

unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]

If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
"dsm-digest"